View
214
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Draft
Assessment of known impacts of unmanned aerial systems
(UAS) on marine mammals: data gaps and recommendations for researchers in the United States
Journal: Journal of Unmanned Vehicle Systems
Manuscript ID juvs-2015-0017.R1
Manuscript Type: Review
Date Submitted by the Author: 30-Oct-2015
Complete List of Authors: Smith, Courtney; Ocean Associates, Inc., ; NOAA Fisheries, Office of
Protected Resources Sykora-Bodie, Seth; Ocean Associates, Inc., ; NOAA Fisheries, Office of Protected Resources Bloodworth, Brian; NOAA Fisheries, Office of Protected Resources Pack, Shalynn; Ocean Associates, Inc., ; NOAA Fisheries, Office of Protected Resources Spradlin, Trevor; NOAA Fisheries, Office of Protected Resources LeBoeuf, Nicole; NOAA Fisheries, Office of Protected Resources
Keyword: umanned aerial systems, marine mammals, protected species, anthropogenic impacts, disturbance
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/juvs-pubs
Journal of Unmanned Vehicle Systems
Draft
Smith et al. · UAS impacts on marine mammals · IN PRESS-juvs-2015-0017.R1
1
Assessment of known impacts of unmanned aerial systems (UAS) on marine mammals: data 1
gaps and recommendations for researchers in the United States1 2
3
Courtney E. Smith, Seth T. Sykora-Bodie, Brian Bloodworth, Shalynn M. Pack, 4
Trevor R. Spradlin, Nicole R. LeBoeuf 5
6
Abstract 7
The development of advanced technologies to enhance conservation science often outpaces the abilities of wildlife managers to assess 8
and ensure such new tools are safely used in proximity to wild animals. Recently, unmanned aerial systems (UAS) have become more 9
accessible to civilian operators and are quickly being integrated into existing research paradigms to replace manned aircraft. Several 10
Federal statutes require scientists to obtain research permits to closely approach protected species of wildlife such as marine 11
mammals, but the lack of available information on the effects of UAS operations on these species has made it difficult to evaluate and 12
mitigate potential impacts. Here, we present a synthesis of the current state of scientific understanding of the impacts of UAS usage 13
near marine mammals. We also identify key data gaps that are currently limiting the ability of marine resource managers to develop 14
appropriate guidelines, policies or regulations for safe and responsible operation of UAS near marine mammals. We recommend 15
researchers prioritize collecting, analyzing, and disseminating data on marine mammal responses to UAS when using the devices to 16
better inform the scientific community, regulators and hobbyists about potential effects and assist with the development of appropriate 17
mitigation measures. 18
Page 1 of 38
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/juvs-pubs
Journal of Unmanned Vehicle Systems
Draft
Smith et al. · UAS impacts on marine mammals · IN PRESS-juvs-2015-0017.R1
2
Keywords: unmanned aerial systems, marine mammals, protected species, anthropogenic impacts, disturbance 19
Introduction 20
Aerial systems have long been integral to the monitoring and management of wildlife. Surveys and data gathering tools using aerial 21
platforms can yield important information regarding habitat conditions, population size and demographics, as well as health and 22
fitness for both terrestrial and marine species (Fearnbach et al. 2011; Sweeney et al. 2015; Vermuelen et al. 2013). However, as 23
research budgets shrink and technology rapidly advances, scientists are looking to utilize unmanned aerial systems (UAS) as a safer 24
and more cost-effective alternative for conducting low-altitude wildlife and ecological surveys (Koh and Wich 2012; Ogden 2013). 25
These systems can greatly benefit researchers and wildlife managers by reducing errors in aerial estimation of wildlife populations 26
often caused by variation in survey path (Koski et al. 2015), increasing the time spent over the survey target (i.e., survey effort), 27
minimizing the risk of potential disturbance, eliminating observer fatigue (Conroy et al. 2008; Hodgson et al. 2013), and maximizing 28
the safety of wildlife researchers by negating the need to put people aboard aerial platforms (Wiegman and Taneja 2003). In addition 29
to the research benefits, UAS also can be an important tool to aid wildlife emergency responders and law enforcement officials in 30
monitoring or investigating animals in distress and conducting safer rescue operations. 31
In recent years, UAS operations have been integrated into numerous field studies involving a variety of species: orangutans (Pongo 32
abelii; Koh and Wich 2012), American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis; Jones et al. 2006), African elephants (Loxodonta 33
Page 2 of 38
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/juvs-pubs
Journal of Unmanned Vehicle Systems
Draft
Smith et al. · UAS impacts on marine mammals · IN PRESS-juvs-2015-0017.R1
3
africana; Vermuelen et al. 2013), black bears (Ursus americanus; Ditmer et al. 2015), as well as numerous avian (Chabot and Bird 34
2012; Chabot et al. 2014; Popatov et al. 2013; Rodriguez et al. 2012; Vas et al. 2015; Weissensteiner et al. 2015), ungulate (Barasona 35
et al. 2014), and marine mammal species (Acevedo-Whitehouse et al. 2010; Koski et al. 2009; Martin et al. 2012; Schick et al. 2014; 36
Selby et al. 2011). The research, conservation, and management applications of UAS vary widely, including the use of UAS to deter 37
birds from feeding in commercially important agricultural areas (Grimm et al. 2012), monitoring habitat and biodiversity loss (Koh 38
and Wich 2012), determining the health and fitness of large species where temporary capture is impractical (Hunt et al. 2013; Moore 39
et al. 2013), and monitoring illegal poaching activities (Olivares-Mendez et al. 2014; Mulero-Pázmány et al. 2014). There are also 40
animal welfare applications; UAS are used to detect resting fawns at risk of fatal interactions with mowing machines (Israel 2011). 41
UAS offer an effective means to obtain valuable information with minimal behavioral disturbance and/or short-term, recoverable 42
physiological responses (e.g., Ditmer et al. 2015) in many target species. Additionally, UAS cause significantly lower levels of 43
disturbance than traditional aircraft when flown at comparable heights (Acevedo-Whitehouse et al. 2010; Moreland et al. 2015, Mulac 44
et al. 2011; Sleno & Mansfield 1978). 45
In the case of marine mammals, the data gathered from aerial platforms provides important information for the conservation and 46
management of these species. Indeed, under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries 47
Service (NMFS) is tasked with integrating these data into annual stock assessment reports for cetaceans and pinnipeds, which supports 48
the development of the regulatory frameworks needed to effectively manage these species. However, the relatively new use of UAS in 49
marine mammal research presents additional challenges, particularly within the scope of their potential to impact marine mammals. 50
Page 3 of 38
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/juvs-pubs
Journal of Unmanned Vehicle Systems
Draft
Smith et al. · UAS impacts on marine mammals · IN PRESS-juvs-2015-0017.R1
4
Under the auspices of multiple statutes (e.g., the MMPA, Endangered Species Act (ESA), National Environmental Policy Act 51
(NEPA)), several regulatory agencies are required to evaluate all reasonably foreseeable environmental consequences resulting from 52
human activities. This can create a paradox, whereby the scientific research permitting process to obtain a permit for an action 53
(including testing new technologies and methods) requires information from applicants regarding the disturbance thresholds of a 54
proposed action. As a result, researchers and managers must infer known impacts from “surrogate” species, which may or may not 55
occur within a comparable study area or similar study design. This can be especially challenging since marine mammal scientific 56
research activities are generally required to be conducted in a manner that minimizes impacts and disturbances. Additionally, Federal 57
Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements regarding UAS piloting and operations include limitations for the use of these platforms 58
for research, which falls into the FAA category of commercial, rather than recreational, use. Thus, researchers using UAS must follow 59
requirements for FAA permitting, which are currently evolving with few designated test sites to train and become experienced with 60
UAS operations, and national airspace restrictions preventing their use (Hoppin 2014; Watts et al. 2010). As a result, there is little 61
information available about UAS impacts on marine mammals. 62
While multiple reviews have been published on the applications, capabilities, and inventory of UAS platforms, effects of their 63
operations on wildlife are under-reported in the literature. Additionally, there has not yet been a collective analysis of UAS impacts on 64
wildlife. Given the limited published literature on the effects of UAS operations on marine mammals, particularly when flown at 65
lower altitudes, more information is needed to assist with shaping guidelines for safe and responsible operation of UAS near marine 66
mammals. Here, we briefly describe commonly used UAS, provide an overview of published studies that include known effects of 67
Page 4 of 38
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/juvs-pubs
Journal of Unmanned Vehicle Systems
Draft
Smith et al. · UAS impacts on marine mammals · IN PRESS-juvs-2015-0017.R1
5
UAS flown in proximity to marine mammals, and present an analysis of the largest information gaps. We also highlight how the 68
current state of scientific understanding presents challenges to managers as they permit important research and provide guidelines to 69
the general public to ensure the health and safety of marine mammals. 70
Commonly used UAS 71
Various designs of UAS platforms are in operation, which have been divided into multiple classification schemes based on device 72
weight, propulsion methods, payload capacity, altitude/range capabilities, and general application (e.g., Anderson and Gaston 2013; 73
Mackenzie 2009; Watts et al. 2012). For the purposes of our analysis, this paper focuses on two broad classes that are commonly used 74
in marine mammal research: vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) and fixed-wing (FW) systems (Figure 1). The designs and 75
functionality of these two UAS types yield a wide range of applications and support various research objectives. 76
77
Vertical Takeoff and Landing Systems (VTOL) 78
As the name implies, VTOL systems are those that have the ability to take off and land vertically, eliminating the need for a runway. 79
The propulsion mechanisms involve rotors affixed to the top of the system (as seen in the larger, manned helicopters) or those 80
extending horizontally with arms from the main UAS housing. The number of rotors varies, depending on the design, but generally 81
range from four (quadcopter) to eight (octocopter). Because VTOLs have the ability to maintain a stationary position, they can be 82
Page 5 of 38
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/juvs-pubs
Journal of Unmanned Vehicle Systems
Draft
Smith et al. · UAS impacts on marine mammals · IN PRESS-juvs-2015-0017.R1
6
ideal for photography and videography, monitoring slow-moving wildlife or real-time events such as whale entanglements, and can 83
easily be operated and maneuvered in areas that conventional aircraft cannot access. 84
Such systems used in marine mammal research are generally lightweight (under 5 kilograms), inexpensive (relative to other manned 85
survey platforms), easily portable, and readily available from numerous commercial manufacturers. The systems are remotely 86
operated, using toggle-based hand controllers, and can be monitored visually by the naked eye and kept within visual line-of-sight of 87
the operator, using smaller, portable ground control stations. The applications for VTOLs in marine mammal research are not as well 88
documented as FW systems (e.g., Hodgson et al. 2013; Koski et al. 2009). However, the growing availability of off-the-shelf 89
technology has facilitated numerous research efforts (Table 1). Generally, the hovering capability and system design of VTOLs 90
provides a unique and effective vertical platform for aerial photography and videography, thus facilitating great potential for counting 91
species for population assessments (Koski et al. 2007; Hodgson et al. 2013), conducting photogrammetric studies and determining 92
body condition (Hunt et al. 2013; Moore et al. 2013; Durban et al. 2015; Goebel et al. 2015), and developing remote means for 93
collecting biological samples such as breath exhalate to monitor disease (e.g., Acevedo-Whitehouse et al., 2010). Future applications 94
already in place with other marine species may be expanded to include outfitting UAS with payload components such as telemetry 95
devices, which could be remotely deployed on animals to assist with tracking individuals (Jensen et al. 2014). Employing UAS in this 96
manner may likely mitigate the need for close approaches by vessels, thereby reducing impacts of vessel-based systems (M. Moore, 97
personal communication, March 20, 2015; Stark et al. 2003). 98
99
Page 6 of 38
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/juvs-pubs
Journal of Unmanned Vehicle Systems
Draft
Smith et al. · UAS impacts on marine mammals · IN PRESS-juvs-2015-0017.R1
7
Fixed-Wing Systems 100
Fixed-wing (FW) systems are generally much larger in size (with wingspans up to three meters), sometimes requiring a runway for 101
launch and landing/retrieval. However, once airborne, FW UAS require very little control from the operator due to integrated autopilot 102
capabilities which enable the FW UAS to fly between pre-determined waypoints. Likewise, altimeters as part of the payload enable 103
geo-fencing to maintain the UAS at specific altitudes (Hardin and Jensen 2011). Fixed-wing UAS generally travel at higher altitudes 104
and at faster speeds than VTOL systems, although slower speeds are usually necessary to ensure that measurements are accurate (e.g., 105
clear images from vertically placed cameras). Finally, these systems can range hundreds of kilometers from the launch site, often 106
beyond the visual line-of-sight of the UAS operator, making it an ideal platform for use in remote locations that may be unsafe or 107
inaccessible for observers aboard manned aircraft surveys (Koski et al. 2010, NMML 2008). However, geographic locations for 108
beyond-line-of-sight UAS operations may be limited due to currently proposed FAA regulations and, outside of designated testing 109
ranges, are only permitted within certain Arctic areas (FAA, 2012). Overall, the capabilities of FW UAS make this platform suitable 110
for many of the same marine mammal applications as that of VTOLs, with the exception of research that would require a low-altitude, 111
fixed position, such as breath sampling. 112
113
Known effects of UAS on marine mammals 114
Despite the increasing use of UAS in marine mammal research, relatively few studies have systematically documented their effects on 115
various species of marine mammals (Table 1). However, two main effects of disturbance were identified, regardless of platform or 116
Page 7 of 38
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/juvs-pubs
Journal of Unmanned Vehicle Systems
Draft
Smith et al. · UAS impacts on marine mammals · IN PRESS-juvs-2015-0017.R1
8
target species: disturbance from noise versus visual cues from the UAS (or its shadow). In many of the cases where information is 117
available, it is largely anecdotal with cursory observations briefly mentioned within the context of other (i.e., non UAS impact-based) 118
research. Most of the relevant research reviewed in this paper tested the utility of UAS as a research platform for data collection (e.g., 119
Koski et al. 2009; Perryman et al. 2014), and have therefore not collected primary, empirical data on the behavioral responses of 120
marine mammals to UAS. As a result, the current literature is biased towards reporting observed behavioral responses, as opposed to 121
situations in which no behavioral response was observed. Thus, little is known empirically about the responses of individual marine 122
mammals or populations/species as a whole to the presence or absence of UAS. 123
124
Based on the existing information, it appears that flight altitude is an important factor. However, there is no conclusive information to 125
distinguish between disturbance from noise versus disturbance by visual cues from the UAS or its shadow as a function of altitude. 126
Many researchers reported that UAS elicited less disturbance and avoidance behaviors than would a traditional manned aerial survey 127
(Acevedo-Whitehouse et al., 2010; Moreland et al. 2015; Mulac et al., 2011; Sleno & Mansfield, 1978), likely because noise levels 128
were far less than those observed from manned aircraft and are often diminished by ambient noise levels from various environmental 129
factors (Goebel et al. 2014; Hogdson et al. 2013; Jones et al. 2006; NMFS 2008, 2014; Pomeroy et al. 2015; van Polanen Petel et al. 130
2006). For example, two types of VTOL systems (the APH-22 hexacopter and Aeryon Scout quadcopter) were measurably quieter at 131
altitudes greater than 23 m than the traditional manned aerial survey platform (Twin Otter) at an altitude of ~ 200 m (700 ft) (NMFS 132
2014). Additionally, these two systems at lower altitudes (< 23 m) were found to be even quieter than ambient sound levels of coastal 133
Page 8 of 38
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/juvs-pubs
Journal of Unmanned Vehicle Systems
Draft
Smith et al. · UAS impacts on marine mammals · IN PRESS-juvs-2015-0017.R1
9
sampling sites. The Puma AE (a FW UAS) was found to be even quieter than either of the two VTOL systems (NMFS 2014). It 134
should be reiterated, however, that ambient environmental conditions factor largely in determining acoustic effects. 135
136
VTOLs that hover at low heights over animals during research (e.g., for breath sampling of cetaceans) may generate more noise and 137
should be monitored for behavioral reactions; however, this did not appear to be the case during breath sampling of several species of 138
large whales (Acevedo-Whitehouse et al. 2010). In general, cetaceans and sirenians do not appear to be acoustically disturbed by 139
UAS, which can be attributed to the loss of acoustic energy at the air/water interface. Minimal, or no, disturbance was documented at 140
~150 m for beluga whales (Sleno and Mansfield 1978), 13 meters for blue, gray, humpback, and sperm whales (Acevedo-Whitehouse 141
et al. 2010), and ~ 30 m for killer whales (Durban et al. 2015). Florida manatees did not seem to be disturbed by the noise of fixed-142
wing UAS flying near 100 m (Jones et al. 2006), and researchers believe that dugongs and other marine fauna would not be disturbed 143
by the noise of a FW UAS flying ~ 300 m (1000 ft) above the water (Hodgson et al. 2013). 144
145
Indeed, as altitude decreases, the triggers for behavioral responses most likely shift from purely acoustic modalities to acoustic and 146
visual ones. Cetaceans, in general, may be more sensitive to behavioral disturbance the lower a UAS is operated. For example, 147
bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) have been observed to chase the shadows of a VTOL operated at ~ 20 m (R. Cassof, personal 148
communication, October 29, 2014). Conversely, dolphins from the same population were shown to sporadically, yet briefly (<10 s), 149
Page 9 of 38
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/juvs-pubs
Journal of Unmanned Vehicle Systems
Draft
Smith et al. · UAS impacts on marine mammals · IN PRESS-juvs-2015-0017.R1
10
avoid shadows cast from a tethered airship that hovered over focal animals; however, the altitude of the airship during this encounter 150
was not reported (Nowacek et al. 2001). 151
152
In this respect, marine mammals that spend considerable time on land, such as pinnipeds, may be especially sensitive to both visual 153
and acoustic cues of the UAS, and thus, more prone to disturbance than cetaceans or sirenians. As a frame of references, the 154
silhouettes of an APH-22 (VTOL UAS) at 6 m, an eagle at 23 m, and a Puma AE (FW UAS) at 33 m are identical in size to the 155
silhouette of a manned Twin Otter aircraft at ~ 200 m altitude (NMFS 2014). These types of visual cues can trigger multiple 156
behavioral responses. For example, the hovering behavior of a VTOL resembles known predators (e.g., bald eagles) and may elicit 157
flushing behavior as observed in harbor seals (Olson 2013). However, even in this case, behavioral responses to avian predators were 158
shown to vary based on the level of habituation to human disturbance at each haulout site (see also Pomeroy et al. 2015). 159
160
Multiple pinniped species have been observed to flush into the water as a result of very low-level UAS overflights (Fritz 2012). For 161
species that haul out in large congregations on rookeries (such as otariids), a flushing event can quickly escalate into a stampede, 162
which has resulted in serious injuries or mortalities in the past. On the other hand, other species may not react at all. Northern fur, 163
Weddel, and leopard seals did not appear to be disturbed by fixed wing UAS flying at least 23 meters above them (Goebel et al. 2015). 164
However, gray seals showed responses (heads-up) with an altitude as low as 50 m for one system (the Vulcan 8) and movement 165
towards the water when the UAS was at this same altitude above the haulout (Pomeroy et al. 2015 (‘Table 3’)). Based upon 166
Page 10 of 38
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/juvs-pubs
Journal of Unmanned Vehicle Systems
Draft
Smith et al. · UAS impacts on marine mammals · IN PRESS-juvs-2015-0017.R1
11
observations during manned aerial surveys (including large, low-flying aircraft systems), Hawaiian monk seals very rarely react to 167
aircraft and when they do, typically just raise their heads momentarily (NMFS 2014). As such, managers must be aware that a ‘one-168
size-fits-all’ disturbance threshold from UAS impacts may not be applicable to all species. Factors that need to be considered for 169
determining accurate thresholds of behavioral disturbance due to UAS include the type of device used, its capabilities, and the 170
situational circumstances of the research such as the species, habituation levels, and behavioral context observed during the flight. 171
172
These studies imply a general lack of marine mammal response to UAS presence when the aircraft are operated above a certain 173
altitude (despite the bias towards over-reporting disturbances in studies not focused on assessing behavior responses). However, 174
caution should continue to be used when operating the aircraft at any altitude, because important details about the nature of the 175
exposure are opportunistic, given that these data were leveraged from research activities not intended for studying or eliciting 176
behavioral responses. Finally, it is important to note that in addition to the limited published studies on UAS impacts to marine 177
mammals, there is significant anecdotal information about their response to UAS operations in the form of personal communications, 178
blogs, photographs, and videos (e.g., on YouTube). However, due to the recreational or commercial nature of how such information 179
was obtained, any interpretation of behavioral responses from anecdotal sources should be treated with caution. 180
UAS impacts on other wildlife species 181
Page 11 of 38
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/juvs-pubs
Journal of Unmanned Vehicle Systems
Draft
Smith et al. · UAS impacts on marine mammals · IN PRESS-juvs-2015-0017.R1
12
To facilitate effective reporting of marine mammal behavioral responses to UAS operations, we present three case studies of UAS 182
research involving other taxa, where the potential impacts were documented and critically analyzed to address issues of concern. Our 183
hope is that these case studies will provide a basic foundation for researchers establishing novel methods that are scientifically robust, 184
and that they will also provide others with potential scenarios in which the use of UAS is appropriate. We highlight these studies as 185
examples of methodologies that would be useful to be conducted to systematically assess UAS impacts on marine mammals. 186
187
UAS impacts on waterfowl 188
As mentioned above, potential stressors, such as the size, shape or noise of a UAS may be more or less significant under different 189
circumstances. Proximity and color are additional factors that need to be considered, and Vas et al. (2015) designed a study to 190
specifically address them. The authors varied the color as well as speed and angle of approach of a UAS to test the impact these 191
characteristics had on the behavioral responses of mallards, flamingos, and common greenshanks. Over the course of hundreds of 192
trials, the authors identified some characteristics as being significant in leading to a behavioral response, while others elicited no 193
response. Specifically, they found that while UAS color and approach frequency had no impact on bird response, the birds responded 194
strongly to the vertical approach angle. The authors took one additional step to explain why some factors seemed to be impactful; in 195
this case, the birds may be interpreting the vertical approach as a raptor attack. The authors recommend launching UAS from a safe 196
distance away from wildlife and adjusting the approach distance according to the species. Such an approach certainly establishes 197
circumstances for when and how to use UAS technology in studying these specific species consistent with robust scientific methods, 198
Page 12 of 38
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/juvs-pubs
Journal of Unmanned Vehicle Systems
Draft
Smith et al. · UAS impacts on marine mammals · IN PRESS-juvs-2015-0017.R1
13
but it also aids in establishing biological rationales for managers to understand how UAS usage may cause disturbance to some marine 199
mammal species (i.e., those that may expect a predator approach from above), and develop appropriate mitigation measures to minimize 200
impacts on some species. This is further supported by the findings of Pomeroy et al. (2015), who determined lateral distance 201
thresholds of disturbance for gray seals at various haulout sites. 202
203
UAS impacts on birds of prey 204
The method of assessing impacts in an experimental situation is important to accurately determining their significance. Grubb and 205
Bowerman (1997) used a classification and regression tree (CART) analysis of several thousand observations of various airborne 206
platforms on multiple populations of a single species (bald eagles), which is known to be particularly sensitive to behavioral 207
disturbance, displacement, and reproductive failure when approached by aircraft. Although this study did not involve UAS 208
specifically, the analytical approach to assessing impacts can be robustly applied to varied UAS types and characteristics, as well as 209
different biological categories of individuals exposed (e.g., response severity, baseline behavioral state, reproductive or age status, 210
social context, previous exposure, etc., and combinations thereof). The analysis can also estimate the frequency of responses expected 211
based upon specific factors (e.g., distance of the exposed individual from the stressor), which is important for managers to know when 212
determining the status of an activity (e.g., go/no-go scenarios). We believe the CART approach can be successfully applied to evaluate 213
marine species research using UAS; it can bolster. The CART analysis robustness of the UAS methods, help identify or allay concerns 214
about the impact of the research, and enhance productivity of research programs. 215
Page 13 of 38
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/juvs-pubs
Journal of Unmanned Vehicle Systems
Draft
Smith et al. · UAS impacts on marine mammals · IN PRESS-juvs-2015-0017.R1
14
216
Multi-taxa studies 217
Although dedicated experiments addressing the impact of UAS on a single target species are valuable, they are not always practical 218
given time, staff, space, or funding limitations in field studies of marine protected species. Given these practical considerations, 219
finding cost effective methods to collect, analyze, and report conclusions on the impacts of UAS methods on marine mammal species 220
is critical to regulating UAS use on marine mammals. Studies reported in Vermeulen et al. (2013) provide an example of how data 221
collected for one purpose can also benefit non-target species. The authors, while questioning the feasibility of UAS technology to the 222
study of elephants, simultaneously assessed the potential for UAS disturbance to non-target species by using ground observers to 223
corroborate all animal reactions as documented by the images captured by the UAS. However, given the UAS transects were designed 224
for detecting elephants not all non-target species were detected in the images. Although not as informative as dedicated studies, the 225
potential for concurrent disturbance assessments of multiple species can cumulatively lead to a better understanding of how different 226
methodologies can benefit other species by answering questions that may not otherwise attract the necessary funding or attention. 227
228
Discussion 229
Unmanned aircraft systems can offer an effective method for scientific researchers, emergency responders and law enforcement 230
officials to collect data that supports the conservation and recovery of marine mammals or other protected species (Hood 2010). In 231
addition, they can potentially provide the public with a unique way to view and appreciate wildlife in ways that would not be possible 232
Page 14 of 38
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/juvs-pubs
Journal of Unmanned Vehicle Systems
Draft
Smith et al. · UAS impacts on marine mammals · IN PRESS-juvs-2015-0017.R1
15
otherwise. Despite these benefits, UAS also have the potential to be highly disruptive to wildlife if they are not used in a safe and 233
responsible manner. Wildlife managers and researchers are becoming increasingly aware that either acute or chronic disturbances of 234
wildlife can significantly impact individual, population, and species health and fitness by disrupting migratory patterns, breeding, 235
feeding, and sheltering (Fair and Becker 2000). Caution must also be taken given that the lack of an observed behavioral response 236
does not indicate a lack of impact. For example, black bears were found to increase their heart rates (a stress response) when small 237
UAS (VTOLs) were hovering above. It is possible other species, including marine mammals, exhibit the same physiological response. 238
As the scientific community continues to assess the impacts of UAS on marine mammals and other species of wildlife and address the 239
dearth of information available on this subject, we encourage researchers and members of the public to be conscious of the potentially 240
negative effects that these systems can have on wildlife and to take a precautionary stance on using UAS around animals to avoid 241
harassment or injury (NMFS 2015). 242
243
Data Gaps 244
To some degree, the current lack of research focused on investigating the effects of UAS on marine mammals and other species is the 245
natural result of an innovative technology that is evolving faster than regulatory authorities can develop a new management 246
framework (Ditmer et al. 2015; Watts et al. 2012). From a research perspective, investigating the effects of UAS on marine mammals 247
is paradoxically challenging because obtaining the necessary permits requires submitting an application that includes information on 248
known disturbance thresholds -- the very data being sought in the proposed study. UAS also pose management challenges because 249
Page 15 of 38
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/juvs-pubs
Journal of Unmanned Vehicle Systems
Draft
Smith et al. · UAS impacts on marine mammals · IN PRESS-juvs-2015-0017.R1
16
they require researchers navigate multiple jurisdictions to obtain all of the necessary permits and certifications (Rango and Laliberte 250
2010; Watts et al. 2012). 251
252
A review of the relevant literature has revealed limited research and analysis to date on the impacts of UAS on marine mammals. The 253
majority of recent projects have focused on evaluating the methodological application of UAS in studies on population demographics 254
(Hodgson et al. 2013; Sweeney 2014) and health and fitness (Durban et al. 2015; Goebel et al. 2015). In only a handful of instances -- 255
often in studies of the use of UAS as deterrents for so-called nuisance species (Grimm et al. 2012) -- have researchers explicitly 256
monitored behavioral responses. Moreover, increasing anecdotal evidence demonstrates that UAS have the potential to disturb marine 257
mammals and other wildlife species if not used responsibly. Because these data take the form of personal accounts, blogs, 258
photographs, and videos posted by the general public, the evidence is not robust enough to provide a sound basis for taking 259
management actions. However, they certainly provide enough evidence to highlight both our concern about misuse of UAS by the 260
public and uncertainty regarding impacts on marine mammals, and thereby further demonstrate the need for scientific and empirical 261
research to inform management. 262
263
Additionally, the rapid advancement of technology must also be considered when referencing behavioral responses documented in 264
earlier literature, which may provide limited data. In many cases, previous generation technologies incorporating GPS and altitude 265
sensors were not nearly as accurate as they have become in recent years, reducing the confidence in older data. Likewise, the 266
Page 16 of 38
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/juvs-pubs
Journal of Unmanned Vehicle Systems
Draft
Smith et al. · UAS impacts on marine mammals · IN PRESS-juvs-2015-0017.R1
17
information collected from studies using older UAS models can often be considered obsolete due to the rapid technological evolution 267
that may disallow certain data comparisons. Finally, historic studies of target species or populations may not be accurate proxies for 268
assessing present day impacts. For example, the Arctic has experienced environmental shifts attributed to climate change and an 269
increase in anthropogenic activities such as shipping and oil and gas exploration. As a result, the cumulative effects over time may 270
lead to changes in how individual animals perceive and respond to potential novel stressors (like UAS) in their environment. 271
272
In addition to an overall lack of directed studies by researchers on the effects of UAS on marine mammals, an omission from the 273
literature is consideration of multiple stressors and related impacts from multiple UAS devices targeting animals, or UAS being used 274
concurrently with other activities that may impact wildlife. Much in the same manner that researchers will regularly place multiple 275
tags (e.g., suction cup, implantable, etc.) on a single whale, it is not unreasonable to consider multiple UAS targeting a single 276
individual or group of individuals. This is particularly relevant as recreational UAS operators are not required to have pilot 277
certifications, have vague guidelines in place for responsible use, and are increasingly targeting marine mammals. The combination of 278
these factors make a potentially injurious interaction inevitable between a UAS and marine mammal; as evidenced by systems being 279
crashed regularly into ecologically important areas or animals being chased by aircraft (Berwyn 2014; Kelly 2015; Morley 2013; 280
Palermo 2014; Prettyman 2013). This risk dramatically increases with multiple UAS platforms being operated remotely and within a 281
small airspace. Even well-managed research activities are not exempt from UAS malfunctions; for example, the engine of a remote 282
airplane failed while on autopilot directly above a manatee wintering site and crashed into Tampa Bay (Jones 2003). 283
Page 17 of 38
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/juvs-pubs
Journal of Unmanned Vehicle Systems
Draft
Smith et al. · UAS impacts on marine mammals · IN PRESS-juvs-2015-0017.R1
18
284
As a result, we have two main recommendations for the marine mammal scientific research community: 285
1. Evaluate the behavioral responses of different taxa exposed to different types of unmanned aircraft at various altitudes. 286
Information about distance thresholds at which visual or acoustic impacts (with reference to measures of received 287
sound levels) elicit behavioral responses is especially warranted. 288
2. Evaluate various factors that could elicit or modulate the behavioral response by marine mammals such as: i) acoustic 289
features of the study area (ambient masking noise levels, blocking visual elements such as cliffs and trees); ii) species 290
and age class of study animals; iii) behavioral state of study animals; iv) presence and type of other nearby 291
anthropogenic activities; v) UAS acoustic and visual properties (size, number of engines, sound output magnitude and 292
frequency characteristics); and, vi) UAS approach angle (vertical, acute, horizontal), speed, and number of 293
experimental presentations. 294
Such information will enable NMFS and other Federal or State agencies to develop appropriate and useful guidance or regulations to 295
manage the use of UAS near protected species. 296
297
Future development of appropriate policies, guidelines or regulations 298
UAS user groups are evolving and now include scientific researchers, emergency responders, law enforcement officials and 299
recreational hobbyists, so it will be necessary to develop appropriate standards of conduct for each since their purposes, needs and 300
Page 18 of 38
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/juvs-pubs
Journal of Unmanned Vehicle Systems
Draft
Smith et al. · UAS impacts on marine mammals · IN PRESS-juvs-2015-0017.R1
19
legal authorities to approach marine mammals are vastly different. Currently for scientific researchers in the United States, the Federal 301
Aviation Administration (FAA) requires special airworthiness certificates, operator certifications, and other authorizations, while 302
NMFS requires permits for work conducted on species protected by the MMPA and ESA. The general public (e.g., hobbyists) are not 303
eligible for permits to closely approach marine mammals and therefore are expected to adhere to existing guidelines to avoid 304
disturbing (i.e., “harassing”) marine mammals1. 305
306
In February 2015, the FAA published a proposed rule (80 FR 9543) that is intended to provide some of the regulatory clarity sought 307
by the public about UAS usage. The proposed rule presents a potential new regulatory framework for the commercial use of UAS in 308
certain situations, which would apply to research activities and businesses (e.g., tourism) but not hobbyists. The rule proposes 309
operators obtain certification, keep aircraft within visual line-of-sight, stay well clear of airports, and fly at speeds less than 100 miles 310
per hour and below 500 feet. While this rule only addresses certain types of uses, the FAA has been clear that it is only the first in a 311
series of potential regulations or policies that will build upon each other to establish a comprehensive management framework for 312
UAS use (FAA, 2015: 80 FR 9543). 313
314
1 Under the MMPA, it is illegal to “harass” marine mammals in U.S. waters. The MMPA defines the term “harassment” as: “any act of pursuit, torment, or
annoyance which – (1) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild, (Level A harassment), or (2) has the potential to
disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing,
nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).” The ESA provides additional protections to species that are listed as threatened or endangered.
Page 19 of 38
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/juvs-pubs
Journal of Unmanned Vehicle Systems
Draft
Smith et al. · UAS impacts on marine mammals · IN PRESS-juvs-2015-0017.R1
20
Several wildlife conservation agencies are also in the process of evaluating the needs for additional guidance regarding UAS 315
operations near wild animals by the diverse suite of user groups. NMFS is specifically evaluating the needs unique to marine 316
mammals and plans to provide information in the near future on best practices for UAS operations near cetaceans and pinnipeds to 317
help scientific researchers, emergency responders, law enforcement officials and hobbyists minimize their potential impacts on the 318
animals. 319
320
Conclusions 321
There are numerous factors that make it difficult for government agencies and scientific researchers to evaluate the potential impacts 322
of UAS usage near marine mammals. Information is needed to help address this challenge, and researchers can assist by collecting, 323
analyzing, and disseminating data about UAS impacts to provide the foundation for sound management strategies, and help agencies 324
realize the full potential of UAS to assist efforts to protect and conserve living marine resources. Thus, accurately and scientifically 325
reporting behavioral responses to UAS within an empirical context (i.e., publishing in peer-reviewed journals) is important to better 326
inform the scientific community, regulators and hobbyists about potential effects, as well as assist with the development of appropriate 327
mitigation measures. 328
329
Acknowledgements 330
Page 20 of 38
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/juvs-pubs
Journal of Unmanned Vehicle Systems
Draft
Smith et al. · UAS impacts on marine mammals · IN PRESS-juvs-2015-0017.R1
21
We wish to thank Jolie Harrison, Amy Sloan, and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments and insight in developing and 331
improving this manuscript. Reference to specific UAS platforms and models does not imply endorsement by NOAA, National Marine 332
Fisheries Service. We encourage all UAS operators to follow existing Federal marine mammal viewing guidelines and regulations, 333
whether on the water, on land, or in the air (see: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/uas.html). 334
335
References 336
Acevedo‐Whitehouse, K., Rocha‐Gosselin, A., and Gendron, D. 2010. A novel non‐invasive tool for disease surveillance of free‐337
ranging whales and its relevance to conservation programs. Anim. Conserv. 13(2): 217–225. 338
339
Anderson, K., and Gaston, K. 2013. Lightweight unmanned aerial vehicles will revolutionize spatial ecology. Front. Ecol. Environ. 340
11(3): 138–146. 341
342
Barasona J.A., Mulero-Pázmány, M., Acevedo, P., Negro, J.J., Torres, M.J., Gortázar, C., and Vicente, J. 2014. Unmanned Aircraft 343
Systems for Studying Spatial Abundance of Ungulates: Relevance to Spatial Epidemiology. PLoS One 9(12): e115608. 344
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0115608. 345
346
Page 21 of 38
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/juvs-pubs
Journal of Unmanned Vehicle Systems
Draft
Smith et al. · UAS impacts on marine mammals · IN PRESS-juvs-2015-0017.R1
22
Berwyn, B. 2014. Park service wins convictions against 3 Yellowstone drone users. Adventure Journal. Available from 347
http://www.adventure-journal.com/2014/10/park-service-wins-convictions-against-3-yellowstone-drone-users/ [accessed 17 March 348
2015]. 349
350
Chabot, D., and Bird, D.M. 2012. Evaluation of an off-the-shelfu aircraft system for surveying flocks of geese. Waterbirds 35(1): 170–351
174. 352
353
Chabot, D., Carignan, V., and Bird, D.M. 2014. Measuring habitat quality for least bitterns in a created wetland with use of a small 354
unmanned aircraft. Wetlands 34(3): 527–533. 355
356
Conroy, M. J., Peterson, J.T., Bass, O.L., Fonnesbeck, C.J., Howell, J.E., Moore, C.T., and. Runge, J.P. 2008. Sources of variation in 357
detection of wading birds from aerial surveys in the Florida Everglades. Auk 125: 731–743. 358
Ditmer, M.A., Vincent, J.B., Werden, L.K., Tanner, J.C., Laske, T.G., Iaizzo, P.A., Garshelis, D.L., and Fieberg, J.R. 2015. Bears 359
show a physiological but limited behavioral response to unmanned aerial vehicles. Curr. Biol. 25(17): 2278–2283. 360
361
Durban, J.W., Fearnbach, H., Barrett-Lennard, L.G., Perryman, W.L., and Leroi, D.J. 2015. Photogrammetry of killer whales using a 362
small hexacopter launched at sea. J. Unmanned Veh. Syst. 3: 131–135. dx.doi.org/10.1139/juvs-2015-0020. 363
Page 22 of 38
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/juvs-pubs
Journal of Unmanned Vehicle Systems
Draft
Smith et al. · UAS impacts on marine mammals · IN PRESS-juvs-2015-0017.R1
23
364
Fair, P.A., and Becker, P.R. 2000. Review of stress in marine mammals. J. Aquat. Ecosyst. Stress Recovery 7: 335–354. 365
366
Federal Aviation Administration [FAA]. 2012. Expanding Use of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems in the Arctic Implementation 367
Plan (FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012). Available from https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/sUAS_Arctic_Plan.pdf. 368
369
Federal Aviation Administration [FAA]. 2015. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned 370
Aircraft Systems (80 FR 9543). U.S. Department of Transportation. Available from https://federalregister.gov/a/2015-03544. 371
372
Fearnbach, H., Durban, J.W., Ellifrit, D.K., Balcomb III, K.C. 2011. Size and long-term growth trends of endangered fish-eating killer 373
whales. Endanger. Species Res. 13: 173–180. 374
375
Fritz, L. 2012. By land, sea, and air: a collaborative Steller sea lion research cruise in the Aleutian Islands. NOAA Fisheries Alaska 376
Fisheries Science Center Quarterly Report, January-February-March 2012. Available from 377
http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/Quarterly/jfm2012/divrptsNMML1.htm. 378
379
Page 23 of 38
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/juvs-pubs
Journal of Unmanned Vehicle Systems
Draft
Smith et al. · UAS impacts on marine mammals · IN PRESS-juvs-2015-0017.R1
24
Goebel, M.E., Perryman, W.L., Hinke, J.T., Krause, D.J., Hann, N.A., Gardner, S., and LeRoi, D.J. 2015. A small unmanned aerial 380
system for estimating abundance and size of Antarctic predators. Polar Biol. 38(5): 619–630. doi: 10.1007/s00300-014-1625-4. 381
382
Grenzdörffer, G.J. 2013. UAS-based automatic bird count of a common gull colony. ISPRS–Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 383
Spatial Inform. Sci., XL-1 W. 2: 169–174. 384
385
Grimm, B.A., Lahneman, B.A., Cathcart, P.B., Elgin, R.C., Meshnik, G.L., and Parmigiani, J.P. 2012. Autonomous unmanned aerial 386
vehicle system for controlling pest bird population in vineyards. In ASME 2012 International Mechanical Engineering Congress and 387
Exposition, American Society of Mechanical Engineers. pp. 499–505. 388
389
Grubb, T.G., and Bowerman, W.W. 1997. Variations in breeding bald eagle responses to jets, light planes, and helicopters. J. Raptor 390
Res. 31: 213–222. 391
392
Hardin, P.J., and Jensen, R.R. 2011. Small-scale unmanned aerial vehicles in environmental remote sensing: Challenges and 393
opportunities. GIsci. Remote Sens. 48(1): 99–111. 394
395
Page 24 of 38
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/juvs-pubs
Journal of Unmanned Vehicle Systems
Draft
Smith et al. · UAS impacts on marine mammals · IN PRESS-juvs-2015-0017.R1
25
Hodgson, A.J., Kelly, N., and Peel, D. 2013. Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) for surveying marine fauna: A dugong case study. 396
PLoS One. 8(11): e79556. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0079556. 397
398
Hodgson, A.J., Noad, M., Marsh, H., Lanyon, J., and Kniest, E. 2010. Using unmanned aerial vehicles for surveys of marine mammals 399
in Australia: Test of concept. Final Report to the Australian Marine Mammal Centre. Available from http://www.lauramay-400
collado.com/uploads/6/6/8/1/6681148/amanda_etal.pdf. 401
402
Hood, R.E., MacDonald, A.E., Ralph, F.M., Wick, G.A., Weatherhead, B., Rogers, R.F., Landsea, C.W., and Cione, J.J. 2010. 403
NOAA's unmanned aircraft program: recent accomplishments and future plans. In Proceedings of the 14th Symposium on Integrated 404
Observing and Assimilation Systems for the Atmosphere, Oceans, and Land Surface, Atlanta, GA 16-21 January 2010. Available from 405
https://ams.confex.com/ams/90annual/webprogram/Paper165637.html [accessed 22 March 2015]. 406
407
Hoppin, J. 2014. FAA rules on drones grounding science. Available from http://www.govtech.com/products/FAA-Rules-on-Drones-408
Grounding-Science.html. 409
410
Hunt, K.E., Moore, M.J., Rolland, R.M., Kellar, N.M., Hall, A.J., Kershaw, J., Raverty, S.A., Davis, C.E., Yeates, L.C., Fauquier, 411
D.A., Rowles, T.K., and Kraus, S.D. 2013. Overcoming the challenges of studying conservation physiology in large whales: a review 412
Page 25 of 38
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/juvs-pubs
Journal of Unmanned Vehicle Systems
Draft
Smith et al. · UAS impacts on marine mammals · IN PRESS-juvs-2015-0017.R1
26
of available methods. Conserv. Physiol. 1(1): 1–24. doi: 10.1093/conphys/cot006. 413
414
Israel, M. 2011. A UAV-based roe deer fawn detection system. In International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and 415
Spatial Information Sciences (ISPRS Workshop), Zurich, Germany, 14-16 September 2011. 38(1/C22): 51–55. 416
417
Jensen, A.M., Geller, D.K., and Chen, Y. 2014. Monte Carlo simulation analysis of tagged fish radio tracking performance by 418
swarming unmanned aerial vehicles in fractional order potential fields. J.Intell.Robot. Syst. 74(1-2): 287–307. 419
420
Jones, G.P. 2003. The feasibility of using small unmanned aerial vehicles for wildlife research. Doctoral dissertation, University of 421
Florida, Gainesville, Florida. 422
423
Jones IV, G.P., Pearlstine, L.G., and Percival, H.F. 2006. An assessment of small unmanned aerial vehicles for wildlife research. 424
Wildl. Soc. Bull. 34(3): 750–758. 425
426
Kelly, S. 2015. Drone that crashed into sea captures stunning footage of underwater life (Video). Available from 427
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/social/drone-crashed-sea-captures-stunning-footage-underwater-life-video. [accessed 17 January 428
2015]. 429
Page 26 of 38
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/juvs-pubs
Journal of Unmanned Vehicle Systems
Draft
Smith et al. · UAS impacts on marine mammals · IN PRESS-juvs-2015-0017.R1
27
430
Koh, L.P., and Wich, S.A. 2012. Dawn of drone ecology: low-cost autonomous aerial vehicles for conservation. Trop. Conserv. Sci. 431
5(2): 121–132. 432
433
Koski, W.R., Allen, T., Ireland, D., Buck, G., Smith, P.R., Macrander, A.M., Halick, M.A., Rushing, C., Sliwa, D.J., and McDonald, 434
T.L. 2009. Evaluation of an unmanned airborne system for monitoring marine mammals. Aquat. Mamm. 35(3): 347–357. 435
436
Koski, W.R., Abgrall, P., and Yazvenko, S.B. 2010. An inventory and evaluation of unmanned aerial systems for offshore surveys of 437
marine mammals. J. Cetacean Res. Manag. 11(3): 239–247. 438
439
Koski, W.R., Gamage, G., Davis, A.R., Mathews, T., LeBlanc, B., and Ferguson, S.H. 2015. Evaluation of UAS for photographic re-440
identification of bowhead whales, Baleana mysticetus. J. Unmanned Veh. Syst. 3: 22-29. doi: 10.1139/juvs-2014-0014. 441
442
Koski, W.R., Thomas, T.A., Funk, D.W., and Macrander, A.M. 2013. Marine mammal sightings by analysts of digital imagery versus 443
aerial surveyors: a preliminary comparison. J. Unmanned Veh. Syst.1(1): 25–40. 444
445
Page 27 of 38
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/juvs-pubs
Journal of Unmanned Vehicle Systems
Draft
Smith et al. · UAS impacts on marine mammals · IN PRESS-juvs-2015-0017.R1
28
Leonardo, M., Jensen, A.M., Coopmans, C., McKee, M., and Chen, Y. 2013. A miniature wildlife tracking UAS payload system using 446
acoustic biotelemetry. In ASME 2013 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in 447
Engineering Conference, American Society of Mechanical Engineers. pp. V004T08A056–V004T08A056. 448
449
Mackenzie, R. 2009. Environmental and earth science using next generation aerial platforms [online]. Available from 450
www.nerc.ac.uk/research/themes/ technologies/events/documents/uav-study-report.pdf [accessed 16 March 2015]. 451
452
Martin, J., Edwards, H. H., Burgess, M.A., Percival, H.F., Fagan, D.E., Gardner, B. E., Ortega-Ortiz, J. G., Ifju, P., Evers, B. S., and 453
Rambo, T. J. 2012. Estimating distribution of hidden objects with drones: from tennis balls to manatees. PloS One 7(6): e38882. doi: 454
10.1371/journal.pone.0038882. 455
456
Moreland, E.E., Cameron, M.F., Angliss, R.P., and Boveng, P.L. 2015. Evaluation of a ship-based unoccupied aircraft system for 457
surveys of spotted and ribbon seals in the Bering Sea pack ice. J. Unmanned Veh. Syst. 3: 114-122. dx.doi.org/10.1139/juvs-2015-458
0012. 459
460
Morley, J. 2013. Navy report on Maryland drone crash: ‘disastrous results’ averted. Available from 461
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/26/navy-report-on-maryland-drone-crash-disastrous-results-averted.html. 462
Page 28 of 38
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/juvs-pubs
Journal of Unmanned Vehicle Systems
Draft
Smith et al. · UAS impacts on marine mammals · IN PRESS-juvs-2015-0017.R1
29
463
Mulaca, B., Storvoldb, R., and Weatherhead, E. 2011. Remote sensing in the Arctic with unmanned aircraft: Helping scientists to 464
achieve their goals. In Proceedings of 34th International Symposium on Remote Sensing of Environment, Sydney, Australia, 10-15 465
April, 2011. Available from http://www.isprs.org/proceedings/2011/ISRSE-34/211104015Final00863.pdf. 466
467
Mulero-Pázmány, M., Stolper, R., Van Essen, L.D., Negro, J.J., and Sassen, T. 2014. Remotely piloted aircraft systems as a rhinoceros 468
anti-poaching tool in Africa. PloS One 9(1): e83873. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0083873. 469
470
National Marine Mammal Laboratory [NMML]. 2008. Unmanned aircraft launched from NOAA ship Oscar Dyson. NOAA Fisheries 471
News Release [online]. Available from http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/newsreleases/2008/aircraft102908.htm. 472
473
National Marine Fisheries Service [NMFS]. 2008. Supplemental Environmental Assessment On The Effects of the Issuance of Eleven 474
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Permitted Scientific Research Activities on Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles in the U.S. 475
Territorial Waters and High Seas of the North Pacific Ocean (Including the Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea), Arctic Ocean (Including 476
the Chukchi Sea and Beaufort Sea), Southern Ocean (Including Waters off Antarctica), and Foreign Territorial Waters of Mexico 477
(Gulf of California Only), Canada, Russia, Japan, and the Philippines. 14 pp. 478
Page 29 of 38
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/juvs-pubs
Journal of Unmanned Vehicle Systems
Draft
Smith et al. · UAS impacts on marine mammals · IN PRESS-juvs-2015-0017.R1
30
479
National Marine Fisheries Service [NMFS]. 2009. NOAA Unmanned aircraft helping scientists learn about Alaskan ice seals [online]. 480
Available from http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090602_aircraft.html. 481
National Marine Fisheries Service [NMFS]. 2013. Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for Hawaiian Monk Seal 482
Recovery Actions. Available from http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/eis/hawaiianmonksealeis.htm. 483
National Marine Fisheries Service [NMFS]. 2014. Environmental Assessment for Issuance of Permits to take Steller Sea Lions by 484
harassment during surveys using unmanned aerial systems. 33 pp. 485
486
National Marine Fisheries Service [NMFS]. 2015. Unmanned Aircraft Systems: Responsible Use to Help Protect Marine Mammals 487
[online]. Available from http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/uas.html. 488
489
Nowacek, D., Tyack, P., and Wells, R. 2001. A platform for continuous behavioral and acoustic observation of free-ranging marine 490
mammals: Overhead video combined with underwater audio. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 17(1): 191–199. 491
492
Ogden, L.E. 2013. Drone Ecology. BioScience 63(9): 776–776. 493
Page 30 of 38
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/juvs-pubs
Journal of Unmanned Vehicle Systems
Draft
Smith et al. · UAS impacts on marine mammals · IN PRESS-juvs-2015-0017.R1
31
494
Olivares-Mendez, M., Bissyande, T.F., Somasundar, K., Klein, J., Voos, H., and Traon, Y.L. 2013. The NOAH Project: giving a 495
chance to threatened species in Africa with UASs. In 496
Fifth International IEEE EAI Conference on e-nfrastructure and e-Services for Developing 497
Countries (AFRICOMM 2013), Blantyre, Malawi. pp.10–20. Available from https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00994237/document. 498
499
Olson, J.K. 2013. The effect of human exposure on the anti-predatory response of harbor seals (Phoca vitulina). M.S. thesis, 500
Department of Biology, Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA. Available from 501
http://biol.wwu.edu/mbel/media/pdfs/Olson_Thesis.pdf. 502
503
Palermo, E. 2014. Banned drone may have damaged Yellowstone Spring. Livescience Blog. Available from 504
http://www.livescience.com/47269-drone-crash-yellowstone-hot-spring.html [accessed 17 March 2015]. 505
506
Perryman, W., Goebel, M.E., Ash, N., LeRoi, D., and Gardner, S. 2014. Small unmanned aerial systems for estimating abundance of 507
krill-dependent predators: a feasibility study with preliminary results. In Jennifer G. Walsh (ed.), AMLR 2010-2011 field season 508
report, pp. 64–72. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SWFSC-524. 509
510
Page 31 of 38
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/juvs-pubs
Journal of Unmanned Vehicle Systems
Draft
Smith et al. · UAS impacts on marine mammals · IN PRESS-juvs-2015-0017.R1
32
Prettyman, B. 2013. Drones annoying bighorn sheep, hikers at Zion National Park.The Salt Lake Tribune. Available from 511
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57904709-78/drones-baltrus-park-zion.html.csp. 512
513
Pomeroy, P., O’Connor, L., and Davies, P. 2015. Assessing use of and reaction to unmanned aerial systems in gray and harbor seals 514
during breeding and molt in the UK. J. Unmanned Veh. Syst. 3: 102–113. dx.doi.org/10.1139/juvs-2015-0013. 515
516
Potapov, E.R., Utekhina, I.G., McGrady, M.J., & Rimlinger, D. 2013. Usage of UAV for surveying Steller's sea eagle nests. Raptors 517
Conserv. 27: 253–260. 518
519
Rango, A., and Laliberte, A.S. 2010. Impact of flight regulations on effective use of unmanned aircraft systems for natural resources 520
applications. J. Appl. Remote Sens. 4(1): 043539–043539. 521
522
Rodríguez, A., Negro, J.J., Mulero, M., Rodríguez, C., Hernández-Pliego, J., and Bustamante, J. 2012. The eye in the sky: combined 523
use of unmanned aerial systems and GPS data loggers for ecological research and conservation of small birds. PloS One 7(12): 524
e50336. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0050336. 525
526
Page 32 of 38
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/juvs-pubs
Journal of Unmanned Vehicle Systems
Draft
Smith et al. · UAS impacts on marine mammals · IN PRESS-juvs-2015-0017.R1
33
Sardá-Palomera, F., Bota, G., Viñolo, C., Pallares, O., Sazatornil, V., Brotons, L., Gomariz, S. and Sardá, F. 2012. Fine‐scale bird 527
monitoring from light unmanned aircraft systems. Ibis 154(1):177–183. 528
529
Selby, W., Corke, P., and Rus, D. 2011. Autonomous aerial navigation and tracking of marine animals. In Proceedings of the 2011 530
Australasian Conference on Robotics and Automation, Melbourne, Australia, 7-9 December 2011., pp. 1-7. 531
532
Schick, R., Hewiit, B., Rodwell, S., Anderson, P., Pomeroy, P., Hesse, E., and Thompson, P. 2014. Estimating Body Condition in 533
Harbour Seals in Loch Fleet with Aerial Photogrammetry: 534
A Proof of Concept Study. Available at: http://www.masts.ac.uk/media/122954/schick_masts_asm_talk_schick_2014.pdf. 535
536
Sleno, G.A., and Mansfield, A.W. 1978. Aerial photography of marine mammals using a radio-controlled model aircraft. Arctic 537
Biological Station, Fisheries and Marine Service, Dept. of Fisheries and the Environment: Quebec. Fisheries & Marine Service 538
Manuscript Report No. 1457. 539
540
Stark, H., Parthasarathy, P., and Johnson, R N. 2003. Considerations in designing a marine-mammal–ship collision avoidance system 541
based on aerial imagery by an unmanned airborne vehicle. Opt.Eng. 42(1): 11–17. 542
543
Page 33 of 38
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/juvs-pubs
Journal of Unmanned Vehicle Systems
Draft
Smith et al. · UAS impacts on marine mammals · IN PRESS-juvs-2015-0017.R1
34
Sweeney, K. 2014. Flying beneath the clouds at the edge of the world: the use of an unmanned aircraft system to survey the 544
endangered Steller sea lion in Western Alaska. Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Fall 2014 Research Report. Available from: 545
http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/Quarterly/OND2014/divrptsNMML1.htm. 546
547
van Polanen Petel, T.D., Terhune, J.M., Hindell, M.A., and Giese, M.A. 2006. An assessment of the audibility of sound from human 548
transport by breeding Weddell seals (Leptonychotes weddellii). Wildl. Res. 33(4): 275–291. 549
550
Vas, E., Lescroel, A., Duriez, O., Boguszewsk, G., and Gremillet, D. 2015. Approaching birds with drones: first experiments and 551
ethical guidelines. Biol. Lett. 11(2): 20140754. 552
553
Vermeulen, C., Lejeune, P., Lisein, J., Sawadogo, P., andBouché, P. 2013. Unmanned aerial survey of elephants. PLoS One 8(2): 554
e54700. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0054700. 555
556
Watts, A.C., Perry, J.H., Smith, S.E., Burgess, M.A., Wilkinson, B.E., Szantoi, Z., and Percival, H.F. 2010. Small unmanned aircraft 557
systems for low‐altitude aerial surveys. J. Wildl. Manage. 74(7): 1614–1619. 558
559
Page 34 of 38
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/juvs-pubs
Journal of Unmanned Vehicle Systems
Draft
Smith et al. · UAS impacts on marine mammals · IN PRESS-juvs-2015-0017.R1
35
Watts A.C., Ambrosia V.C., and Hinkley, E.A. 2012. Unmanned aircraft systems in remote sensing and scientific research: 560
classification and considerations of use. Remote Sens. 4(6): 1671–1692. 561
562
Weissensteiner, M.H., Poelstra, J.W., and Wolf, J.B.W. 2015. Low‐budget ready‐to‐fly unmanned aerial vehicles: an effective tool for 563
evaluating the nesting status of canopy‐breeding bird species. J. Avian Biol. doi: 10.1111/jav.00619. 564
565
Wiegman, D. A., Taneja, N. 2003. Analysis of injuries among pilots involved in fatal general aviation airplane accidents. Accident 566
Anal. Prev. 35: 571–577. 567
568
Wilson, K., Fritz, L., Kunisch, E., Chumbley, K., and Johnson, D. 2012. Effects of research disturbance on the behavior and 569
abundance of Steller sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus) at two rookeries in Alaska. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 28(1): E58–E74. 570
Page 35 of 38
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/juvs-pubs
Journal of Unmanned Vehicle Systems
Draft
Table 1. Summary of known published impacts of UAS on marine mammals.
Species Group Species UAS Design Model Lowest
Altitude Behavioral Response Details Source
CETACEANS
Mysticetes
Humpback whale
(Megaptera novaeangliae) VTOL
Mini- helicopter
‘Birdy’ ~ 9 m
No behavioral responses were reported.
(Permit No. 716-1705-01, 2008 annual
report).
NMFS (2008)
Bowhead whale (Balaena
mysticetus) FW TD100E 120 m No behavioral responses reported. Koski et al. (2015)
Mysticetes and
Odontocetes
Blue whale (Balaenoptera
musculus), Humpback
whale (Megaptera
novaeangliae), Gray whale
(Eschrichtius robustus), and
Sperm whale (Physeter
macrocephalus)
VTOL Radio-controlled
helicopter 13 m
Large whales showed no additional
avoidance behaviors when approached by
UAS than observed during vessel based
research activities.
Acevedo-
Whitehouse et al.
(2010)
Odontocetes
Beluga (Delphinapterus
leucas) FW
Senior Telemaster
(fuel powered) 150-200 m
No abnormal behaviors observed during or
after flights.
Sleno & Mansfield
(1978)
Killer whale (Orcinus orca) VTOL APH-22 (battery
powered) 35 m No behavioral responses observed.
Durban et al.
(2015)
SIRENIANS
Sirenia
Florida manatee (Trichechus
manatus) FW
FoldBat
(fuel powered) 100-150 m No behavioral responses observed. Jones et al. (2006)
Dugong
(Dugong dugon)
ScanEagle
(fuel powered) ~150 - 300 m
Unlikely to have behavioral responses
when flown at 300 m.
Hodgson et al.
(2013)
PINNIPEDS
Ottariids
Steller sea lion (Eumetopias
jubatus) FW
Puma AE (All-
Environment)
(battery powered)
60 m No behavioral responses observed. Fritz (2012)
Steller sea lion (Eumetopias
jubatus)
VTOL
Aeryon Scout
(quadcopter; battery
powered)
~15-30 m
At > 30 m, 1% were alert; At 20-30 m,
1.6% were alert; at 15-20 m, 20.8% alert
and 2% entered the water.
Fritz (2012)
Steller sea lion (Eumetopias
jubatus)
APH-22
(hexacopter; battery
powered)
~ 45 m
Over 4 hours of flight time, only one
instance of disturbance, 5 animals flushed
into water (0.3% disturbance rate, as
compared to 5% disturbance rates from a
manned aircraft)
Sweeney (2014)
Otariids and
Phocids
Antarctic fur seal
(Arctocephalus gazella),
leopard seal (Hydrurga
leptonyx), Weddell seal
(Leptonychotes weddellii),
VTOL
Quadrocopter
model md4-1000
(from Microdrones,
GmbH)
23 m
No observations that any pinnipeds were
responding to the aircraft at altitudes over
23 m.
Perryman et al.
(2013); Goebel et
al. (2014)
Page 36 of 38
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/juvs-pubs
Journal of Unmanned Vehicle Systems
Draft
Species Group Species UAS Design Model Lowest
Altitude Behavioral Response Details Source
Phocids Harbor seal
(Phoca vitulina) VTOL
Cinestar 6
(Hexacopter;
battery powered) 30-50 m
Little to no behavioral reactions at 30 m
altitude on frequently disturbed haulout.
Seals on more remote haulout site observed
flushing with UAS at 50 m.
Pomeroy et al.
(2015) Skyjib (Octocopter;
battery powered)
Phocids Gray seal (Halichoerus
grypus) VTOL
Cinestar 6
(Hexacopter;
battery powered)
5-30 m
For breeding seals:
Animals were alert, lifted heads with UAS
at 30 m; shuffling and changes in position
were observed when UAS at 15 m.
For molting seals:
Animals were alert, lifted heads with UAS
at 30 m; shuffling and changes in position
were observed when UAS at 30 m; seals
observed to flee from UAS at 5 m. Pomeroy et al.
(2015)a
Vulcan 8
(Octocopter; battery
powered)
30-50 m
For breeding seals:
Animals were alert, lifted heads with UAS
at 50 m; locomotion of seals was observed
when UAS was at 30 m.
For molting seals: Animals were alert,
lifted heads with UAS at 50 m; shuffling,
changes in position and fleeing behavior
were observed when UAS at 50 m
Phocids
Ice seals:
Ribbon seal (Histriophoca
fasciata); Spotted seal
(Phoca largha)
FW ScanEagle
(fuel powered) 90-200 m
Comparison with manned aircraft surveys
showed marked reduction in disturbance
during UAS operations.
Moreland et al.
(2015)
Phocids
Ice seals:
Bearded seal (Erignathus
barbatus); Ribbon seal
(Histriophoca fasciata);
Ringed seal (Pusa hispida);
Spotted seal (Phoca largha);
FW ScanEagle
(fuel powered) ~ 90-300 m
UAS was small, relatively quiet and did not
seem to disturb the seals as much as a
manned vehicle.
NOAA (2009);
Mulac et al. (2011)
a Additional information regarding lateral distance thresholds for behavioral reactions are included in Pomeroy et al. (2015), but were not included in this table as it was
the only reference to do so.
Page 37 of 38
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/juvs-pubs
Journal of Unmanned Vehicle Systems
Draft
Fig. 1. Examples of two commonly used UAS platforms in marine mammal research: a VTOL
system (left: a HexaXL, by MikroKopter; photo by Courtney Smith, NOAA) and a FW system
(right: the Puma AE [All Environment], by AeroVironment, Inc.; photo publicly available from
NOAA (see: http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/evaluating-oil-spill-response-technologies-
arctic)).
Page 38 of 38
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/juvs-pubs
Journal of Unmanned Vehicle Systems
Recommended